City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

October 10, 2011

 

1.         Roll Call                                                                  

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone.  (Voting and Seating Order for October: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe).   City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.

 

2.            Approve Agenda

A representative from Meritex requested removal of Consent Item 7.l entitled, “Consider Approving Amendment to the Public Improvement Contract for Highcrest Park Addition.”

 

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent Item 7.h entitled, “Adopt a Resolution to Set a Public Hearing to Amend the City’s Redevelopment Plan and Industrial Development District #1 Plan in Conjunction with the Sale of Bonds to Finance the Construction of a new Fire Station and Park Improvements.”

 

Councilmember Willmus requested removal of Consent Item 7.f entitled, “Approve Allina Data Use Agreement.”

 

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. 

 

a.         Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Grefenberg asked that the City Council direct staff to prepare a brief fact sheet for the public’s benefit outlining and combining information on financial impacts for typically-valued homes in Roseville based on the proposed levy, bond levies, and utility tax increases.  Mr. Grefenberg noted that this would allow taxpayers to have one document to review rather than being tasked with going through multiple documents on line to glean the total impact of these proposals.

 

Mayor Roe concurred that this would be useful and appropriate information to include on the City’s website as well; and in one location.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted that the information had been provided by staff in various reports and should be easy to compile.

 

Councilmember McGehee clarified that information being requested by Mr. Grefenberg, and including the HRA levy, for specific amounts for various house value ranges.

 

Mr. Grefenberg confirmed that this was his request; and that a comprehensive document would be easier for public consumption and understanding.

 

b.            Carol Kough, 2931 Asbury Street

Written comments were provided by Ms. Kough on a variety of items, attached hereto and made a part hereof: County Road C-2 (Item 10.a) as well as comments related to the 2012 budget and tax levy; and organized refuse hauling.

 

5.            Council Communications, Reports and Announcements

On behalf of the City Council, staff and the community, Mayor Roe extended condolences to the family of Roseville resident and long-time speed skating participant and advocate, Mr. Bill Cushman, who had passed away on October 4, 2011; and reviewed highlights of Mr. Cushman’s obituary.

 

Mayor Roe noted various supplemental documents provided to the City Council as bench handouts for tonight’s meeting, noting that public copies were available as well.

 

6.            Recognitions, Donations, Communications

 

a.         Presentation of Patriot Award for Police Chief Mathwig

Mr. Bob Murphy, Roseville resident, and Ombudsman for Minnesota Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR), presented a brief introductory video related to those serving in this capacity.  Mr. Murphy noted that Police Officer Erin Reski, a member of the Minnesota National Guard and serving overseas, and a member of the Roseville Fire Department, had nominated Police Chief Rick Mathwig for a Patriot Award for his support of his employees’ participation in the ESGR.  Mr. Murphy formally presented the award to Chief Mathwig.

 

b.         Employer Support of Guard and Reserve Statement of Support

In a related presentation, Mr. Murphy presented Mayor Roe, on behalf of the City of Roseville, with a formal Statement of Support for the Guard and Reserve.

 

Mayor Roe thanked those serving the County, and the efforts of City staff and the entire Roseville community in supporting them and their service.

 

6.         Approve Minutes

Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.

 

a.            Approve Minutes of September 26, 2011  Meeting     

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the minutes of the September 26, 2011 meeting as submitted.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

7.            Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.

 

a.            Approve Payments

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.         

 

ACH Payments	$314,766.33
64123 – 64232	1,018,757.84
Total	$1,333,524.17

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve Business Licenses

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for those applicants as follows:

 

Applicant/Location	Type of License
Aspen James @ Lifetime Fitness 2380 Fairview Avenue	Massage Therapist
MGM Spirits Express, Inc. 1149 Larpenteur Avenue	Cigarette / Tobacco
Aspen Waste Systems, Inc. 2951 Weeks Avenue SE; Mpls., MN	Recycling Hauler Solid Waste Hauler
Ace Solid Waste, Inc. 6601 McKinley Street NW; Ramsey, MN	Solid Waste Hauler
Neighborhood Recycling Corporation, d/b/a Eureka Recycling 2828 Kennedy Street NE; Mpls., MN	Recycling Hauler

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

c.            Approve Temporary Liquor License November 5, 2011 for Concordia Academy, 2400 Dale Street

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the application for a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License by Concordia Academy, 2400 N Dale Street, for November 5, 2011.

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

d.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented as follows:

 

Department	Vendor	Item/Description	Amount
Streets	Plaisted Companies	Sand for winter ice control	$5,343.75
Streets	North American Salt	Road salt for winter ice control	65,000.00

 

 

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

e.            Approve Agreement with Check Diversions, LLC

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the Mayor, City Manager and Police Chief to enter into a three (3) year agreement (Attachment A) with Check Diversion Program, LLC to provide the Roseville Police Department assistance in obtaining records to assist in the investigation and prosecution of individuals issuing worthless checks and ensuring that victims are paid full restitution from the offender and that financial education is provided to the first time offender.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

g.            Adopt Resolution for Paid On-Call Firefighters’ Participation in PERA Police and Fire

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10938 (Attachment A) entitled, Part-Time Firefighter PERA Declaration;” requesting that part-time firefighters: Brad Stene (#50291), Kevin Blanchard (#50298), Bryan Sullivan (#50299), Thomas Alexander (#50269), Luke Mickelson (#50286), Joshua Waylander (#40309), Karl Strohmeier (#50304), Rob Hinrichs (#50307), Daniel Concha (#50310, Christopher Rice (#50305), Timothy Damrow (#50308), and Michael Bierscheid (#50306) be accepted as a member of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Police and Fire Plan effective the date of the employee’s initial Police and Fire Plan salary deduction by the City of Roseville.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

i.             Approve Renewal of Ramsey County GIS User Group Joint Powers Agreement

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the revised Ramsey County GIS User Group Joint Powers Agreement (Attachment A).

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

j.             Approve 1835 Chatsworth Encroachment Agreement

A copy of the “Certificate of Survey” was provided as “Attachment A” as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of an Encroachment Agreement (A) for 1835 Chatsworth Street N.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

k.            Adopt a Resolution Approving Fees for newly-required Community Development Permit Applications

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10939 (Attachment A) entitled, “A Resolution Approving New Applications and Corresponding Fees for Annual Outdoor Storage and Display, Seasonal Outdoor Sales, Seasonal Outdoor Sales, and Accessory Dwelling Units;” and adding their associated fees to the Annual Fee Schedule.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

m.          Authorization to Enter into Agreements Related to the Use of City-owned Land at 2875 Fairview Avenue

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen  advised that annual utility costs to the City, until this building was demolished, would be approximately $1,000 - $1,500.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of entering into the Driveway Easement Agreement, the Building Demolition and Easement Agreement, and the Mutual Termination of the Lease Agreement with Hagen Ventures, LLC, in substantially the form on file, subject to modifications approved by the City Manager and the City’s legal counsel.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

f.             Approve Allina Data Use Agreement

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen summarized the request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 10, 2011 related to a study of various aspects of the Roseville area Public Service Area (PSA).  A bench handout was distributed, attached hereto and made a part hereof, entitled, “Data Use Agreement Between the Roseville Fire Department and Allina Medical Transportation.”

 

Councilmember Willmus requested clarification on the type of data to be collected.

City Manager Malinen, confirmed by City Attorney Mark Gaughan, advised that, as outlined in Section 3.1 of the Agreement, data collected would be limited to data not protected under HIPPA and/or other data privacy stipulations.

 

Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to enter into a Data Use Agreement Allina Hospitals and Clinics (“Allina Medical Transportation”)

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Abstentions: McGehee.

Motion Carried.

 

h.            Adopt a Resolution to Set a Public Hearing to Amend the City’s Redevelopment Plan and Industrial Development District #1 Plan in Conjunction with the Sale of Bonds to Finance the Construction of a New Fire Station and Park Improvements

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen summarized the request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 10, 2011 to set a Public Hearing.  Mr. Malinen reviewed various financing tool options reviewed by City staff, including the use of the City’s Port Authority previously granted by the State legislature.  Mr. Malinen reviewed staff’s rationale in proposing this financial tool for the City and the advantages of this option in lowing administrative efforts in the initial development of the program, and allowing for more flexibility relative to improvements compared to abatement bonds as another option; as well as a lower overall cost for issuing the bonds.  Mr. Malinen advised that staff continued to work with bond counsel in developing the bond issue, and advised that their recommendation was to amend the City’s Redevelopment Plan and Industrial Development District No. 1 Plan as indicated to provide more specificity and a tentative timeline for implementation.

 

Councilmember McGehee provided her perspective on State Statute and how a Port Authority was set up as far as governance and actual authority; who would serve as the Board, whether the City Council, or a separate non-elected body; and differentiations between a Port Authority and an HRA.

 

City Manager Malinen, in response to Councilmember McGehee, advised that the City’s bond counsel may be more adept at responding to Councilmember McGehee’s questions; and would be available to do so on October 24, 2011, the proposed Public Hearing date.  At this time, Mr. Malinen noted, bond counsel could answer questions of the City Council and the public as part of their presentation.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the information provided in tonight’s agenda packet was insufficient to allow her to make a determination and to clearly understand what was being requested.

 

City Manager Malinen reiterated that tonight’s request was simply to schedule a Public Hearing to facilitate that more detailed public discussion.

 

Mayor Roe concurred; and asked if there would be an additional Public Hearing opportunity by the Port Authority to hear comments related to issuing bonds, following the October 24, 2011 Public Hearing at the City Council level, and before their issue.

 

City Manager Malinen, with confirmation by Finance Director Chris Miller, responded that there would not be an additional Hearing.

 

City Manager Malinen confirmed that the proposed October 24, 2011 Public Hearing would deal with the $27 million in bonds proposed, even though they were actually three (3) separate bonds.

 

To make it clear to the public on the purpose of the proposed bond issue, and in case bond counsel confirms that this will be the only Public Hearing before issuing those bonds, Mayor Roe recommended language revisions to the draft resolution (Attachment A) as follows and the Public Notice itself as follows:

Resolution: Lines 96-99, amend to read:

“2. Public Hearing.  This Council shall meet on Monday, October 24, 2011 at 6:00 p.m., to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of a modified Redevelopment Project Area and Industrial Development District No. 1 Plan, [in conjunction with the sale of bonds to finance the construction of a new fire station and park improvements]  pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.028, as amended.”

Public Notice: Line 131-132, amend to read:

“… Project Area and Industrial Development District No. 1 within the City, [in conjunction with the sale of bonds to finance the construction of a new fire station and park improvements,] pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.028, as amended…. “

 

Finance Director Chris Miller opined that he was not aware whether or not the Mayor’s suggested language revisions created an issue; however, he noted that the City’s bond counsel had specifically drafted the draft resolution to meet the letter of the law; and cautioned the City Council to be aware of his concern.

 

City Manager Malinen suggested that the motion requested in the RCA include a stipulation that the Mayor’s recommended language revisions be taken into consideration by bond counsel, and if no issue, to continue moving forward unless there was a legal issue related to inserting that additional language.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that there was no emergency in issuing the bonds; and expressed her personal disappointment in the entire bond issue process and insufficient information provided to-date.

 

Councilmember Johnson, as a supporter of Abatement Bonds for the Parks Improvements, and of CIP Bonds for the Fire Station; commended City Manager Malinen and staff for bringing forward this alternative, allowing for more flexibility for the park improvement procedure rather than the strict abatement structure, as well as more flexibility in implementing those funds.  Councilmember Johnson also recognized the substantial interest savings over the term of the bond issue of approximately $1 million.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of a Resolution (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on the Proposed Adoption of a Modified Redevelopment Plan and Industrial Development District No. 1 Plan for Redevelopment Project Area and Industrial Development District No. 1,” scheduled for Monday, October 24, 2011, as presented.

 

Councilmember Pust sought to clarify that this proposed action was not serving to delegate the City Council’s authority, accountability, timing of the bond issue, or allocation of monies generated by issuing bonds to some non-elected body; with her understanding that the City Council would still be the decision-makers of how and when bond funds were used.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted that the abatement bond schedule was a very strict process; however, this process provided a more fluid way to make spending decisions related to park improvement implementation.

 

At the request of Councilmember Pust regarding the City Council making those decisions, Councilmember Johnson noted that the City Council had already approved the Park and Recreation Master Plan, and that it was driving those changes that had already been approved.

 

Councilmember Pust sought assurance that everyone was in agreement that the City Council would still be voting on future expenditure of those funds.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that the City Council had provided staff with the direction to issue bonds for park improvements and a new fire station; and that staff was following that direction in arranging for financing of those improvements and projects as called for.  Related to the Fire Station, Mr. Malinen noted that, while the City Council had concurred with the study(ies) conducted to-date and authorized moving forward, there would be multiple steps in proceeding, including, for example, architects would return for City Council approval of plans, and public bidding processes would need to be followed as well.  Related to park improvements, Mr. Malinen advised that the City Council had provided directed on the Park Improvement Plan (PIP) and blanket approval to move forward with Implementation Step One, and any expenditures over $5,000 would return to the City Council for approval.  Mr. Malinen noted that the bond issue itself and the implementation process as well would return for City Council approval beforehand.

 

Roe moved, Pust seconded, a friendly amendment as previously outlined by Mayor Roe, or comparable language, subject to approval by bond counsel.

 

As makers of the motion, Councilmembers Johnson and Willmus accepted the friendly amendment; with Mayor Roe thus withdrawing his motion.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned Finance Director Miller on bond counsel fees for different types of bond issues; with Mr. Miller responding that the type of bond was not the question, but the complexity of the bond issue.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned why staff was recommending using the City’s Port Authority and why those interest rates were lower.

 

Finance Director Miller advised that, specific to the type of bond financing and why it saved taxpayer dollars, it was due to the level of interest of institutional investors in holding those bonds.  Mr. Miller advised that a more straightforward bond issue, other than park Abatement or CIP Bond issues that were less familiar to investors, avoided premium bidding of those investors that would drive up costs, often up to a quarter of a percent, creating significant increased interest on a bond issue of $27 million for the park improvements and fire station.

 

Mayor Roe asked Finance Director Miller to respond to the meaning of a “bank qualified” bond issue.

 

Mr. Miller responded that for a bond issue to be “bank qualified,” it meant that the City issued no more than $10 million in bonds annually, allowing smaller banks to bid on those bonds, and driving bid rates down with more bidders in the pool.  Mr. Miller advised that the urgency in staff bringing this issue forward at this time and with this timeframe, was to proceed with the first issue in 2011 and save taxpayer dollars, estimated to be around $1 million.  Mr. Miller advised that this straightforward type of issue was favorably looked upon by investors, and was relatively risk free for them, again serving to drive bid rates down.

 

Finance Director Miller, at the request of Councilmember McGehee, further addressed the difference in issuing the bonds by using the Port Authority versus the city Council issuing the bonds, based on whether or not a referendum was used to issue the bonds; noting that the City Council majority had voted in the recent past to not proceed to referendum, setting up this scenario of staff bringing forward their recommendation.

 

Councilmember McGehee requested additional information on the difference between a General Obligation bond issued by a Port Authority versus a City Council; and clarity for her reading of Port Authority statutes related to any contracts over $1,000 handled through a Best Value Procurement process or by a formal bidding process.

 

Mayor Roe advised that Councilmember McGehee’s question, as well as any others submitted by individual Councilmembers, could be answered as part of the October 24, 2011 Public Hearing and addressed by bond counsel and/or staff at that time.

 

Mayor Roe called the question for the motion, as amended:

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10940  (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on the Proposed Adoption of a Modified Redevelopment Plan and Industrial Development District No. 1 Plan for Redevelopment Project Area and Industrial Development District No. 1,” scheduled for Monday, October 24, 2011; and amended as follows, subject to bond counsel review, or through comparable language at the recommendation of bond counsel:

Resolution: Lines 96-99, amend to read:

“2. Public Hearing.  This Council shall meet on Monday, October 24, 2011 at 6:00 p.m., to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of a modified Redevelopment Project Area and Industrial Development District No. 1 Plan, [in conjunction with the sale of bonds to finance the construction of a new fire station and park improvements]  pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.028, as amended.”

Public Notice: Line 131-132, amend to read:

“… Project Area and Industrial Development District No. 1 within the City, [in conjunction with the sale of bonds to finance the construction of a new fire station and park improvements,] pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.028, as amended…. “

 

Roll Call (As Amended)

Ayes: Willmus: Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Abstentions: Pust.

Motion Carried.

 

Additional information requested from bond counsel and/or staff included:

·         Process for contracts over $1,000, whether through Best Value Procurement or lowest bid process (McGehee).

·         Whether the City Council, as a Port Authority, has the ability to hold additional Public Hearings as a bond issue proceeded; and if so, notice requirements related to those hearings (Roe).

·         If any special action is required to appoint the City Council as the Port Authority Board; and if the City needed to adhere to all stipulations in Chapters 469.048-068 of Minnesota State Statute (McGehee).

 

Mayor Roe also requested that, if staff is able to locate a copy of the special legislation establishing the City’s Port Authority, that it be provided to the City Council and public for review; and including any procedures that may be different from normal statutory requirements.

 

Mayor Roe asked that individual Councilmembers make any other requests for additional information known to staff prior to the October 24, 2011 Public Hearing. 

 

            l.        Consider Approving Amendment to the Public Improvement Contract for Highcrest Park Addition

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen reviewed the RCA dated October 10, 2011, for approval of an Amendment to the Public Improvement Contract (PIC) for Highcrest Park Addition.  Mr. Malinen noted that the developer had raised an issue specific to Item 4 (Park Dedication Fee) of the draft PIC, and as previously noted, had requested removal of this item from tonight’s consent agenda.  Mr. Malinen noted that the proposed park dedication fee, as outlined in the PIC, was standard methodology practice used by the City to-date in basing the assessed value of the property when the subdivision was originally granted approval.  Mr. Malinen advised that the developer was suggesting that the City use a different method of calculation in this case, in basing fair market value for what the property sold; resulting in a lower fee.

 

Councilmember Pust questioned how long the City has used this methodology and how many other properties would have been or would potentially be affected in the future.

 

City Manager Malinen responded, confirmed by City Attorney Mark Gaughan, that this methodology of using the estimated market value as established by the Ramsey County Assessor’s Office, had historically been used by the City and at the time the subdivision was approved.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan responded that the City’s Subdivision Ordinance did not specifically address that methodology.

 

Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke confirmed that the City based the fair market value for determining the fee on the value assessed by Ramsey County’s property appraiser.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that if the City used a standard set of values, set by Ramsey County and not the City of Roseville, it didn’t make sense to change the methodology in this case, just because the property sold for a lesser value; further opining that such an action would serve to set a precedent for all future applicants in similar situations.

Public Comment

Mr. Saunders, Legal Representative for Meritex

Mr. Saunders noted that this item was included on the City Council’s Consent Agenda, as terms of the Agreement had been negotiated and agreed upon.  However, after further review by the developer and its representatives today of the City’s fee schedule (314.051) and park dedication fees at 5% of Fair Market Value, the developer was seeking consideration by the City Council on that actual fee.  Mr. Saunders’ advised that during his discussions with City Attorney Bartholdi, he had been advised that the City’s historical practice was to base the park dedication fee to the assessed value. 

 

While not disputing paying this fee, Mr. Saunders was asking for the calculation methodology to be calculated in a fairer way in today’s economic situation, and more amenable from a developer’s perspective.  Mr. Saunders advised that, from that perspective, the best indicator of fair market value was having a willing seller/willing buyer for a property; and given that this property had been on the market for four (4) years without purchase, he questioned the definition and intent of “fair market value” in State Statute.

 

Mr. Saunders advised that City Planner Thomas Paschke had been provided with a copy of the Purchase Agreements for the property, showing the actual sales price; and asked that the City Council consider that purchase price as considered by the American Institute of Real Estate appraisers, who focused on the market, buyer/seller, and addressing distressed sale situations, which this was.  Mr. Saunders noted that this Purchase Agreement dated back to 2010, and now the buyers were moving forward toward close; however, this was one issue that came up when finalizing the PIC Amendment.  Mr. Saunders advised that his request was that the PIC Amendment language be changed for the park dedication fees to be based on 5% of the purchase price.

 

Discussion among Councilmembers and City Attorney Gaughan related to past practice, while not specifically stipulated in City ordinance, in timing application of the park dedication fee to when the parcel is actually subdivided; and the fair market value determination by the Ramsey County Assessor at that time based on 5% of that value; and the context of the legal term of fair market value in this case and as identified throughout these and other negotiations.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that legal terms could have many meanings; however, in this context it was always known as fair market value at the time the subdivision was created; and further opined that if the City was to make an exception in this one case because the developer wanted to pay less, it would set a precedent.  Councilmember Pust opined that this left two (2) options: tabling the request if Councilmembers felt they needed additional information, or act on the RCA as presented.

 

Pust moved, McGehee seconded, approval of an Amendment (Attachment A) to the Public Improvement Contract for HIGHCREST PARK ADDITION as presented and deny applicant’s request for reduction in or a different calculation methodology to determine the park dedication fee.

 

After further discussion, Mr. Saunders asked that the City Council not table this action, but to proceed to avoid further delay in the property’s closing.

 

Mayor Roe opined that it was clear that the City’s practice had been consistent, and that due to that past practice, other properties may have benefited, and in the end it balanced out.  Mayor Roe spoke in support of continuing current policy.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that this was the only practice that made sense, especially when a buyer/seller may not be immediately available for a subdivision, and delaying calculation of the fee wouldn’t make sense.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

12.         General Ordinances for Adoption

 

a.            Consider Adopting an Ordinance Amending Chapters 1004, 1009, and 1011 of the Zoning Code Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon summarized RCA dated October 10, 2011; and brought forward at previous meetings for City Council review and discussion.

 

Willmus moved, Pust seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1418 (Attachment B) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Sections 1004 (Residential Districts), 1009 (Procedures), and 1011 (Property Performance Standards) of Title 10 “Zoning Code” of the Roseville City Code.”

 

Mr. Trudgeon responded to Councilmember Pust’s requests for square footage requirements of an ADU in comparison to the number of occupants in multi-family dwelling units (apartments).

 

Councilmember Johnson thanked staff for their ongoing work in refining this ordinance; and spoke in support of the Zoning Text Amendment.

 

For the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe summarized the history of this issue, when the City first added Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) as Conditional Uses for single-family residential properties; and the subsequent revisions dictated by its practical application with the first two (2) applications that came forward.  Mayor Roe note that the concern rose from the Use going with the property, even with a change in ownership, and what would trigger the City revisiting the Use other than through complaint-driven methods.  Mayor Roe advised that the resulting amendment was to approve them as Permitted Uses, with an administration process handled by Community Development Department staff for each Permit, including providing that the Use expiring with the sale of the property, and needing reapplication to allow for staff analysis of the Use and to allow neighborhood comment at that time as well.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1418 (Attachment C) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Sections 1004 (Residential Districts), 1009 (Procedures), and 1011 (Property Performance Standards) of Title 10 “Zoning Code” of the Roseville City Code.”

 

Roll Call (Super Majority)

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

13.         Presentations

 

a.            Receive County Road C-2 Cost Estimates

Mayor Roe, in introducing this item, reminded the audience that this was a presentation by staff to the City Council, at the City Council’s request for discussion purposes only at this time, on projected costs to make a connection of County Road C-2 between Lexington and Hamline Avenues.  Mayor Roe advised that this was to provide an opportunity for questions and answers by the City Council and staff; however, he noted that he would recognize public comment following the presentation and City Council discussion, as long as they were specifically focused on the presentation and not arguing the merits of opening or keeping C2 closed.  Mayor Roe noted that this meeting had therefore not been formally noticed to affected property owners as a meeting where an action would be taken; and his suggestion to the City Council would be that the City Council take this issue under advisement following the presentation and any formal action be taken at a future meeting.

 

City Engineer Debra Bloom summarized cost estimates for two (2) different scenarios as detailed in the RCA dated October 10, 2011, with the total cost estimate for Scenario 1 being $404,000; and the total cost estimate for Scenario II being $956,000.  Ms. Bloom also briefly summarized the current City Assessment Policy related to such a project; and Minnesota State Aid (MSA) funds available, as well as a summary of projects programmed over the next five (5) years and estimated MSA funds encumbered for those projects.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Bloom identified the width of County Road C at Griggs, exclusive of the right-of-way, as 32’. 

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Public Works Director Duane Schwartz advised that the funds currently available in the Pavement Management Plan (PMP) were approximately $12 million.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned if, in the past, the City had undertaken completion of existing sections of rights-of-way without assessing them.

 

Ms. Bloom advised that such segments were usually undertaken as part of a redevelopment project, such as Josephine Woods Development and their installation of a new road, which will be paid 100% by the developer.  Ms. Bloom noted that one exception had been the City’s acquisition of rights-of-way in Twin Lakes.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted that the City had retained and maintained this right-of-way for a number of years, and if County Road C-2 were to be connected, questioned if those costs would be passed on to applicable property owners.

 

Ms. Bloom was unsure as to City policy on this situation, since there were very few other examples, other than Rose Place south of County Road C.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked that staff confirm and provide additional information at a later date as to the street pavement width on the east side of the disconnect in the cul-de-sac: whether 28’ or 32’.

 

Public Comment

Mayor Roe briefly reviewed protocol for public comments; advising that all questions would be collected and staff or Councilmembers would respond at one time.  Mayor Roe reminded those wishing to speak of his previous request that comments be focused on the specific cost information brought forward by staff, and not whether or not County Road C-2 should be opened. 

 

Jerry McDonald, 2857 Dellwood Avenue

Mr. McDonald asked: 1) Will the proposed $131,000 address all safety concerns; and 2) What specific problem are we addressing by opening County Road C-2.

 

Mr. McDonald opined that he had yet to hear what problem was being addressed and wondered why the City was proposing to spend unallocated funds, without sufficient foresight, to do work that had no real general problem resolution; further opining that it would be spending a lot of money to create more problems that it would be solving, based on results of the most recent traffic studies.

 

Patricia Rantanen, 2846   Churchill Street

Ms. Rantanen advised that she was opposed to this project, even thought it didn’t affect her street at all, but due to it conflicting with a number of budget and priority rankings identified by the City Council, as well as community survey results.  Ms. Rantanen opined that opening County Road C-2 was not supported by any of the community surveys or in the budget ranking process being used to achieve overall city-wide goals.  Ms. Rantanen noted that there were no MSA budget monies for this project; and that the MSA program was already underfunded over the next five (5) years; and that it didn’t make sense to open County Road C-2 to attempt a solution for a problem that didn’t exist.

 

Ms. Rantanen questioned 1) How does this proposal fit in with Roseville’s Traffic Management Plan (TMP), opining that it didn’t’, since the City didn’t have a TMP.  Ms. Rantanen advocated for the development of a TMP, not just a maintenance plan, and referencing one used by the City of Edina, MN, similar in size or larger to Roseville; and encouraged review of the Edina model and criteria process for residents to present their requests on an annual basis and for determination using established criteria rather than through making reactive decisions.  Ms. Rantanen opined that this reactionary method was irresponsible and set up a recipe for micro and macro traffic problems.  Ms. Rantanen opined that there was no evidence to-date to support opening County Road C-2, but that evidence was provided indicating the numerous conflicts with the City’s identified and established priorities and budgets. 

 

If the City Council was to approve opening County Road C-2, Ms. Rantanen asked that they not send her any more surveys for a response, since they were apparently not listening to what she was saying in her responses.  Ms. Rantanen asked that this issue finally be brought to closure permanent.

 

Jeff Strobeck, 1297 W County Road C-2

Mr. Strobeck opined that the reason for this issue coming forward was to address Josephine Road residents and their preferences for calming traffic on their street, even though studies continue to indicate it is operating below capacity.  Ms. Strobeck asked that the City Council vote “no” for opening County Road C-2, opining that there was no money in the budget to do so; and that he couldn’t personally afford the additional assessment on his property taxes.

 

Mr. Strobeck asked if semaphores had been included in the cost estimates provided by Ms. Bloom; and suggested several options for his fellow Josephine Road residents:

·         Put in a three-way or all-way stop sign at Josephine Road and Fernwood Avenue;

·         Lower the speed limit to 25 mph; or

·         Re-stripe County Road C from Lexington to Hamline Avenues for a four-lane road to facilitate traffic loads.

Mr. Strobeck further opined that any additional road assessments along County Road C-2 would greatly and negatively impact property owners, when current incomes were generally down 8.9%; and respectfully asked for a “no” vote from his elected officials.

 

Lars Ever, 1211 County Road C-2

Mr. Evers questioned the cost for a stoplight at County Road C-2 and Lexington Avenue, as suggested in the traffic study between now and 2030 if County Road C-2 were opened; and if those costs were considered in this discussion.  Mr. Evers also expressed his lack of interest, as a resident on the north side of County Road C-2, for an 8’ pathway eating into his front yard.

 

Stewart Schwiff, 1233 Josephine Road

Mr. Schwiff asked:

1)    When is road construction due to begin on County Road C-2 as part of the Josephine Woods project; and

2)    Is there a way to include this 175’ in that project or coordinate it with that project; and if so, would there be any cost savings to the City if rolled into that project.

 

Eeva Savolainen-Sundstrom, 1160 County Road C2

Ms. Sundstrom opined that it would be devastating for her and neighbors if County Road C-2 was opened.  Ms. Sundstrom questioned if there was a City policy to provide financial compensation to property owners who purchased homes understanding those homes were located on a permanent cul-de-sac; and resulting declines in property values.  Ms. Sundstrom noted that a County Assessor’s Office employee had advised her that her property value would drop an estimated 10-30% if County Road C-2 were connected; and asked how the City would calculated the amount of lost revenue from declining property values if County Road C-2 was connected.

 

Joan Carrier, County Road C-2 east of Lexington Avenue

Ms. Carrier sought additional clarification on how much of the proposed cost would be City funds and how much MSA funds.

 

Ryan Brosch, 2866  Merrill Street

Mr. Brosch expressed curiosity in whether due diligence had been done on the option of three-way stop sign at Fernwood Avenue and/or speed bumps on Josephine Road; including costs and traffic implications of such an option to address the concerns of his Josephine Road neighbors.

 

Dave Rice, 1195 Josephine Road

Mr. Rice questioned if MSA dollars would still be there if County Road C-2 was not opened; and whether the City had the right to keep State funds for roads if they were not actually state roads.

 

Dave Miliotis, 1128 County Road C-2

Ms. Miliotis noted that there were several large, heritage Oak trees in the cul-de-sac area that would need removal if County Road C-2 was opened up; and questioned the cost of their removal.

 

City Engineer Debra Bloom

At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom responded to those questions brought forward.

 

Ms. Bloom advised that both scenarios addressed issues related to safety, including speed, curve, sight line and crest.  Ms. Bloom advised that staff was making a recommendation now for installing a stop sign.  Ms. Bloom advised that consideration of whether to install a stop sign was based on five (5) different criteria, called a warrant analysis, and considering all approached and traffic.  Ms. Bloom advised that the intersection of Fernwood Avenue and Josephine Road did not meet those engineering criteria, and installation of one to address right-of-way conflicts if not determined necessary based on those warrants, had actually been found to create more of an issue, since people would not stop and it would not address their speed anyway if they chose not to stop since they perceived no danger.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned if the City Council was to take action, irrespective of the study, to install a stop sign at Fernwood Avenue and Josephine Road, would the City be liable.

 

City Attorney Gaughan advised, that in studying a related issue, it had been determined that such action could be deemed as a discretionary function of the City Council, and that the City Council would probably not be liable.

 

Related to the nature of County Road C-2 being a State Aid Road, Ms. Bloom advised that she would like to follow-up further on liability issues.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom confirmed that 2001 traffic warrant levels did not support installation of a stop sign at the intersection of Fernwood Avenue and Josephine Road.

 

Related to speed, Ms. Bloom noted that speed limits were set by the State Commissioner of Transportation, and 25 mph was only allowed on parkways, and otherwise 30 mph the minimum speed limit, which was the current speed limit on Josephine Road.  If the City was to request a traffic study, it would be completed on the 85^th percentile of speed of speeds on Josephine Road, and Ms. Bloom advised that recent studies had already indicated that the 85^th percentile on Josephine Road is 35 mph. Ms. Bloom advised that safer roads were the result of  speed limits set at a safe limit, and when studies are done, they usually come back with a higher number.

 

Mayor Roe noted, as a public reminder, that the City Council had previously requested that the City’s Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission develop a city-wide traffic mitigation policy, currently being developed, and which would include various traffic safety mitigation methods based on a consistent and standard set of criteria.

 

Regarding re-striping of County Road C as a four-lane road, Ms. Bloom advised that, while it had been built wide enough for four (4) lanes, studies have indicated that human nature and habit indicates that people will continue using the roads of their choice.

 

Ms. Bloom advised that, when construction projects and cost estimates are provided, they include all anticipated costs for such a project, including driveway reconstruction, curbing, curbs, trees, catch basins, hydrants, and all items that would need incorporated into that estimate, as well as including 20% for a contingency to address any unknowns that may come up as a project moved forward.

 

Ms. Bloom deferred any assessment policy questions to the City Council.

 

Ms. Bloom noted that the recent traffic study stated that traffic by 2030 may require a signal at Lexington and County Road C; however, she advised that there was nothing stated about any semaphore at Hamline Avenue as part of that study.  When 2030 arrives, or if indicated before then, Ms. Bloom noted that a warrant analysis would be completed.  Until then, Ms. Bloom advised that such an improvement would not be something that the County would support, and therefore, had not been included in the City’s cost estimate scenarios.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom confirmed that a traffic signal would be a 50/50 cost between the City and County; estimated at $175,000 for the City cost, and potentially eligible for state funds.  At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Bloom advised that the City would also be fully responsible for ongoing electricity costs for a signal, in addition to the flashing light for emergency vehicles (EVP).

 

Related to whether an 8’ wide pathway was necessary for the pathway proposed as a continuation of the pathway for the Josephine Woods Development, as part of that development, Ms. Bloom advised that traffic would indicate the need for this corridor, with the final width up to the City Council; usually 6’ for concrete and 8’ for bituminous based on funding and maintenance criteria.  The width recommended by staff for City Council consideration would be included as part of any feasibility study if ordered by the City Council.

 

Regarding when the construction on the road for Josephine Woods was to start, Ms. Bloom advised that it was scheduled to begin yet this week, pending final approval of a letter of credit for the developer; and given the limited construction season available yet this year, any coordination of a city project of any scope in conjunction with the Josephine Woods Development would not be feasible, given that survey data is not even available, as well as no start on any design work.

 

Ms. Bloom deferred any discussion on property values and impacts to them as not in staff’s purview to-date unless City Council direction was given; with Mayor Roe concurring noting that, in accordance with state law, assessments needed to be based on their benefits to adjacent properties proposed for assessment.

 

In response to Councilmember Willmus’s acknowledgement that, as part of the Josephine Woods Development the cul-de-sac bulb would be removed, there would no longer be a cul-de-sac on County Road C at that point, with Ms. Bloom responding affirmatively.

 

For the public’s benefit, Ms. Bloom advised that, until given further direction from the City Council, staff’s ability to determine what funds would come from the City and what from MSA dollars was limited.  Ms. Bloom reviewed how MSA funding was received by the City from gas tax monies through the State, but not necessarily drawn upon for that specific roadway.  Ms. Bloom advised that, currently the segment from of County Road C-2 from Lexington to Hamline Avenues was on the MSA system.  Ms. Bloom further clarified that funds would still be there and available from future state aid funds; and once a roadway was designated by the state and approved as part of the state aid system, it would continue to be eligible for future state aid funds, and would need to be built to a certain standard to continue receiving those monies.

 

While recognizing that there would be some trees removed if County Road C-2 was opened up, Ms. Bloom advised that she was not aware of any heritage tree preservations in City Code, would offered to research it further.

 

Councilmember Willmus opined if there were trees or other vegetation on existing unbuilt city rights-of-way, they should not be there, nor any other substantial vegetation.

 

Related to costs included in estimates, Ms. Bloom clarified that for the addition of a right turn lane, it would be at an approximate cost of $10,000.

 

Related to losses to the City in its tax base from property value reductions, Mayor Roe noted that there were many annual variables, both positive and negative, that impacted property valuations.  Mayor Roe advised that the City determined annually how much it needed to fund its budget, through an aggregate dollar amount, and that amount was sent to Ramsey County, at which time they determined the amount allocated through a specific formula to the City to determine that tax amount for Roseville properties.  Mayor Roe advised that, when individual property values went up or down, it affected who paid the total amount, and individuals may see changes in their property taxes from a variety of reasons, including impacts from area projects.

 

Jerry McDonald

Mr. McDonald reiterated his question about what problem was being fixed from spending $131,000.

 

Mayor Roe advised that, after hearing the substantial and often passionate positions of both sides of this issue, the City Council would be discussing whether or not to do this project; and would provide their individual and collective justification for their decision.  

 

Councilmember Johnson, responding to Ms. Patricia Rantenen’s questions as to why this project is not reflected in the City Council’s budget and priority ranking, opined that he, among others, had participated in considerable discussion at the Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Committee level when studying traffic issues.  Councilmember Johnson advised that one recurring issue that came up was to create east/west thoroughfares and pathways that were sustainable, and while perhaps not being obvious in the budget, remained a hot topic and part of ongoing considerations and discussions.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, noting that both the Comprehensive Plan’s land use and transportation chapters dealt with these issues for east/west connectivity and ramifications and impacts of those connections.  As part of the County Road B discussions, considerable consideration was given to how best to address impacts of those policy recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan.

 

Councilmember McGehee thanked Ms. Patricia Rantenen for referencing the Edina study, and agreed that the City could do a better job; and remained, before and after her service on the City Council, a strong supporter of keeping through traffic out of neighborhoods.

 

Councilmember Johnson asked that Ms. Patricia Rantenen provide the City Council with information on the link for the Edina Traffic Management Plan that she had referenced.

 

Discussion ensued on the next step following tonight’s discussion and additional information provided by staff; including the preference to make a decision sooner rather than later; challenges for providing notice for the decision at the October 17, 2011 meeting as discussed; and preference for moving forward with a decision.

 

Ms. Bloom advised that she was only aware of two (2) remaining questions and information requests of staff: ongoing electrical and other related costs for traffic signals; and cost comparisons for concrete versus bituminous pathways.

 

By consensus, staff was directed to include this as an “Action” item for the October 17, 2011 regular City Council meeting; and to provide applicable notice consistent with past practice, while recognizing that the notice period was limited, and asking that residents and neighborhood spokespeople help spread the word.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:21 pm and reconvened at approximately 8:30 pm.

 

14.         Public Hearings

 

15.         Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Consider 2012 City Benefits Insurance Renewals and Cafeteria Contributions

Human Resources Director Eldona Bacon provided a bench handout related to this item and entitled, “Roseville Contribution Percentages by Plan 2011;” attached hereto and made a part hereof.  Ms. Bacon briefly summarized the additional information requested by the City Council at their previous meeting and related to potential contribution policy or philosophy changes for consideration by the City Council.

 

Councilmember McGehee commended staff for getting the additional information together on very short notice; and for negotiating such a favorable benefit package for the City, as well as ongoing success with the City’s Wellness Program that appears to have been well received by staff.

 

Councilmember Pust questioned staff’s rationale for comparable cities with only one (City of Maplewood) in Ramsey County (Attachment B), and the criteria in developing the list for comparison purposes.

 

Ms. Bacon advised that, historically and at the time the list of comparables was developed for use during contract negotiations, those ten (10) cities listed had been either just below or just above the population of Roseville, and felt to be fairly comparable from a staff and service area size.

 

Councilmember Pust asked if that remained true today; with Ms. Bacon responding that some may be larger, and others could be used; however, in reanalyzing them, they had been found to still have a fairly comparable benefit package to Roseville’s.  Ms. Bacon advised that most cities remained comparable in their benefit package, including neighboring communities no matter their size by comparison; however, she advised that many offered opt-out or true cafeteria plans with all employees receiving the same dollar amount, and not offering a tiered plan.

 

Councilmember Johnson questioned if Ms. Bacon was aware of any other cities provide a tier plan, especially for new employees, to provide a lower benefit until they have been sufficiently trained and have a bigger stake in remaining with the City, and became more goal-oriented and developed in their specific jobs.

 

While having observed such a plan in the private sector, Ms. Bacon advised that she had not seen it in the government sector.

 

Councilmember Johnson advised that this is common in the private sector, and used his business as an example with a 50/50 split between employer and employee for health care benefits, and no spousal benefits included. As an administrator and business person, Councilmember Johnson opined that this was used to keep expenses down; and while recognizing that government employees may not receive as high of a salary as their peers in the private sector, and thus rely more on the overall benefit package for their family.

 

Ms. Bacon concurred that, from a total compensation package that included wages and benefits, the public sector trended lower in total compensation.

 

At the request of Councilmember Pust, Ms. Bacon advised that the comparison information was done in 2009, and based on 2008 data, prior to current market conditions.

Mayor Roe referenced a City Manager/Mayor meeting attended earlier today and the trend that most public employees would be receiving little or no salary increases, and offered similar or higher deductibles to that being offered by Roseville.  Mayor Roe opined that peer communities appeared to be stepping back from the 100% richest packages that were the norm several years ago, and trending toward what had been done in the private sector.  While recognizing that the public sector was not in the same place as far as ratio for employer/employee premium coverage splits, the City was comparable to other government entities.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted recent revisions made for the Fire Department retirement plan and related cost savings achieved, and commended Chief O’Neill for that innovation.  Similarly, Councilmember Johnson opined that this was one of the few areas that the City could realize any monetary difference in the budget, while continue to balance that with how employees feel about coming to work and their incentives for doing so.  While urging caution, Councilmember Johnson suggested that in light of zero percent increases and balancing out union contracts with non-union employees, he would like to see the future direction toward those trends indicated by Mayor Roe from meeting with peer mayors and city managers.

 

Mayor Roe suggested a future, more long-term view of the City’s compensation approach, whether a 50/50 split, or where the City wanted to go with its benefit package and as a community. 

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Johnson on one area that it was important right now for city employees to receive a decent health package, since there wasn’t much else in the line of benefits being provided.  Councilmember McGehee opined that if the City Council wanted to review and revise its package, that it considers such a policy and priority for 2013, rather than trying to do so at the last minute since the majority of negotiations have been completed for the upcoming year.  Councilmember McGehee opined that it would be unfair to current staff and Ms. Bacon to seek a last minute change for employees in 2012, whether union or non-union.

 

While understanding that increases have been held very low to-date, Councilmember Pust disagreed that City employees didn’t have a fair and adequate compensation package; and prior to considering such a position, she suggested that a classification and analysis be completed for public versus private sector employees, for similar job titles and descriptions.  Councilmember Pust volunteered to perform that analysis on behalf of the City Council over the next year.  When discussing every year the significant costs of personnel in the City’s annual budget, Councilmember Pust did not agree that there was any attempt to put the budget burdens on staff; however, she did recognize that it was one of many levers affecting the City budget, and representing 86-87% of available tax resources.  Councilmember Pust opined that the only way to add more staff was to do a better job in looking at what the current ones were paid, similar to periodic reviews of relevant factors done in the private market.  While trusting Ms. Bacon’s facts and figures, Councilmember Pust opined that it was her job to make the taxpayer’s money go as far as the community needed it to go; and clarified that she was a strong advocate of public employees; and further opined that this issue needed to be discussed on an ongoing basis, not just as it related to the annual budget.  Councilmember Pust advised that, while not a popular opinion, there was a difference in union and non-union employees; and that there was a definite distinction to be made for collective bargaining units and the rights of employees to unionize.  Councilmember Pust reiterated her willingness to do her part in performing a salary analysis for Roseville versus other private/public employers, and would have it available by March of 2012 for City Council discussion.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe related to negotiated benefits for union and non-union employees, Ms. Bacon advised that the City was bound by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 471.616, subd. 6 addressing aggregate value changes.

 

Councilmember Willmus echoed Councilmember Pust’s comments; and concurred that this was the largest factor in the City’s annual budget; and needed further review and consideration.  Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of shifting from a strict government model and moving toward a private sector models, for overall compensation and benefit packages.

 

Councilmember McGhee expressed her willingness to look at employee compensation; however, reiterated that she didn’t feel it was necessary to hold up the 2012 requested action; and review the information to be compiled by Councilmember Pust by March of 2012.  As part of this review, Councilmember McGehee opined that a discussion of shared resources should be part of it, further opining hat up to 48% of the City’s budget could be reviewed for shared resources.

 

Mayor Roe noted that, if 48% of the City’s budget was done through a shared service approach, the City may lose control of its health care costs as part of its overall compensation package.

 

Mayor Roe noted that part of the requested action was a proposal to take the $18,000 projected savings for 2012 for reduced health care costs and apply them toward the City’s Wellness Program to provide an additional $10 per employee for their ability to opt into a testing program; and questioned whether the City Council wished to accept this proposal.

 

Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of Councilmember Pust’s strategy, in addition to looking at retirement plans going forward as part of the comprehensive employee compensation package.  However, Councilmember Johnson noted that the City Council didn’t have the hands-on experience in contract negotiations that Ms. Bacon experienced in her day-to-day negotiations.

Mayor Roe noted that such negotiating strategies could be addressed by the City Council in Closed Executive Session; with City Manager Malinen advising that such a Closed Session was scheduled on October 17, 2011 to discuss employee negotiations.

 

Mayor Roe spoke in support of a comparison of the public/private sector to provide the most cost effective service delivery for the taxpayer. Mayor Roe opined that he was most impressed with the employee initiatives of the Benefit Wellness Committee; and asked that employees and that Committee be included in future discussions.  Mayor Roe stated that, for him personally, these staff initiatives, including reduced coverage and other impacts taken on by employees, have sent a powerful message to him in considering the employee benefit package and various recommendations.

Public Comment

Gary Grefenberg

As a Minnesota State employee for many years, and paying a portion of his insurance premium as well during that tenure, Mr. Grefenberg opined that there was an inherent danger in democracy if only making comparisons with other government entities.  Mr. Grefenberg further opined that comparisons also needed to be compared with taxpayers being asked to pay the bill, particularly those on Social Security and/or Medicare.  Mr. Grefenberg noted that those taxpayers were already being asked to make sacrifices for park improvements and a new fire station; but no one seemed to be asking City staff to make sacrifices.  Mr. Grefenberg noted that there were few taxpayers in Roseville who received free health insurance; and noted that when a group of Roseville residents became aware of this situation, they had been promised that the City Council would look for ways to reduce taxes.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that it seemed to be a conflict of interest that those receiving benefits were making recommendations to the Council on those benefits; and stated that he had sat through four (4) years of these same discussions.  Mr. Grefenberg asked if it would take a public revolt, such as had recently taken place in WI to get past the concept that union negotiations were not in effect negotiations, but more like capitulation on the part of management; and asked that more attention be given to this.  Mr. Grefenberg asked that the $18,000 not be returned to employees, but taken as a savings to taxpayers as part of the 2012 budget as a whole.

 

Ms. Bacon apologized if she had led anyone to believe that employee premiums were paid 100%; and noted that most employees paid a deductible out-of-pocket of $5,000 to $10,000.

 

John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street

Mr. Kysylyczyn spoke more broadly to this issue, opining that the process for union contracts was still screwed up in Roseville; and that the City Manger, as the City’s negotiator was charged with negotiating at the direction of the City Council and their established goals, and then reporting back on those negotiations.   Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that this was at least the way the process was supposed to work; however, the historical process for union negotiations that still seemed to be the norm was that the union’s signed agreement was brought forward as a matter of fact for the City Council to accept, without having the City Council setting priorities beforehand.

 

Regarding comparing with other cities and the private sector, Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that the other missing comparison was with other government entities with salary comparisons for like positions (e.g. snow plowing) such as Ramsey County, the State of MN or other levels of government.  Mr. Kysylyczyn noted that no information was presented to the City Council that considered that portion beyond city to city comparisons that served to isolate the City in a bubble.

 

While not having any conflicts with Ms. Bacon’s information, Mr. Kysylyczyn suggested that there may be a conflict in asking her to bring forward recommendations to the City Council that personally and directly affected her, and adding undue pressure on her.  Mr. Kysylyczyn suggested that a third party be brought into the process to avoid such a conflict.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if Mr. Kysylyczyn had a model that uses such a third party negotiator; with Mr. Kysylyczyn responding that many cities, including the City of Maplewood, MN, used outside contractors for a portion or all of their human resource services.

 

Carol Kester, SW Roseville

At the request of Ms. Kester as to how many City employees were under Public Employers Retirement Association (PERA), Ms. Bacon responded that all City employees were under PERA, in accordance with state law.

 

Ms. Kester advised that she was asking the questions based on Councilmember Johnson’s comment about reviewing other pension plans; with Councilmember Johnson clarifying that he was asking to be educated on the City’s pension plans.

 

Ms. Kester opined that individual insurance premiums of $300 plus dollars per month seemed high to her; with Ms. Bacon responding that the premiums were based on the number and amount of claims realized by the City, and opined that this was the current situation in the insurance industry.  When asked by Ms. Kester on the number of companies researched to provide health coverage, Ms. Bacon advised that last year, the City had gone into a cooperative 33,000 member national joint powers agreement consortium for insurance coverage, achieving very favorable negotiated rates for the City and its employees.

 

Mayor Roe concurred with Ms. Bacon, noting that the City’s claim history before joining the consortium had created an approximate 37% premium increase to the City, which had eventually been negotiated down as employees agreed to change plans and providers, and accept more out-of-pocket costs and higher deductibles.  Mayor Roe opined that this new consortium appeared to be working well for the City by providing a larger pool to spread premiums among.

 

Ms. Kester opined that the City’s payment of $450/month per individual for not being in the insurance pool seemed extremely high, a rare step, and terribly expensive; and suggested that the payment be dropped down to $200 per month, in addition to looking for other cost savings.

 

Mayor Roe advised that such a proposal, including many others, would be taken into account going forward.

 

Ms. Kester expressed her hope that during ongoing budget discussions, the City Council would look for additional cost savings to reduce taxes rather than continuing to increase them.

 

Councilmember Pust noted that the City was paying almost as much for an employee to not take health insurance coverage as they were paying for single employee coverage; and opined that the proposed savings of $150,000 annually was not accurate for banking; and questioned how many other cities had such a program.

Ms. Bacon responded that fewer and fewer cities were doing so, with most going to a total cafeteria plan and offering a flat dollar amount.  Ms. Bacon noted that this would be a tough thing for families to swallow right now with the current economy, but could serve as a future discussion among Councilmembers.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that this was the type of item for future discussion, for a comprehensive review of the overall employee compensation package.

 

McGehee moved, Roe seconded, approval of 2012 City benefits insurance renewals and cafeteria contributions as described above with the respective contracts, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney; with a January 2012 review for 2013 years and beyond.

 

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, an amendment to the motion that the renewals be approved as presented, with the exception that the $18,200 savings not be put back into the Employee Health and Wellness Program, but instead banked out of the health insurance plan and back into the General Fund for distribution.

 

Mayor Roe clarified for all that the $18,200 was not designated for spending, but total health insurance costs reduced by $18,200 as that revenue would not be required to cover those costs.

 

Roll Call (Amendment)

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

In an effort to keep Councilmembers abreast of additional 2012 Budget reductions, Mayor Roe noted that reductions had already been made to the City Manager-recommended 2012 Budget currently at a proposed 1.8% levy increase; that had originally included a proposed $100,000 increase in employee health insurance premiums, and that this $18,200 was a further reduction in those costs, and would serve to further reduce the 1.8% levy.

 

Roll Call (Original Motion as Amended)

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

b.            Consider Reorganization of Fire Department

As previously presented to the City Council, Fire Chief Tim O’Neill briefly summarized the formal approval request for the Fire Department’s reorganization, detailed in RCA dated October 10, 2011.

 

Mayor Roe noted that at the last discussions, it was indicated that Job Descriptions would come back to the City Council for action; however, after further analysis, Chief O’Neill and City Manager Roe advised that this would not be necessary.

 

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to complete the reorganization as described in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 10, 2011, including reclassification for the Fire Marshal and Shift Commander positions, while establishing a new position titled “Battalion Chief of Emergency Medical Services.”

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

                   Councilmember Pust thanked Chief O’Neill for the cost savings.

 

c.            Consider Contract for Demolition of Fire Station #1

Fire Chief Tim O’Neill briefly reviewed the scope of services for demolition of the existing Fire Station #1 at 2701 Lexington Avenue, and recommendations of the Fire Department Building Facility Needs Committee for demolition of that structure at this time and for those reasons detailed in the RCA dated October 10, 2011.

 

Chief O’Neill advised that the scope of services did not include asbestos abasement or removal of hazardous materials, both to be done under separate contracts, at $2,800.00 and $2,200.00 respectively; and since both would not exceed the combined $5,000 approval amount for the City Manager were not intended to be brought back for City Council approval unless so directed; however, Chief O’Neill wanted to be clear that they were in addition to this proposed action.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Chief O’Neill confirmed that this included filling and compacting the hole in the ground after demolition; and doing a compaction test before the ground freezes, one of the reasons for requesting this demolition now before the ground freezes to ensure that surcharging of the site is complete prior to the 2013 construction season.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if there had been any discussion with the Architect to have any portion of the old fire station be part of the new station from a historic standpoint; noting her disappointment that the City’s first fire truck was sold without consideration for its historic value to the community.  At a minimum, Councilmember McGehee suggested that the Roseville Historical Society should be consulted.

 

Chief O’Neill advised that, while the building itself was in too much deterioration to be of much safe historic value, a farewell ceremony for the old station, as the City’s first fire station, was being planned; as well as removing the original Fire Station #1 iron plates from the building to be incorporated into the history area of the new station.

 

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to award the contract for demolition services with Frattalone Companies in an amount not to exceed $48,000.00.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion Carried.

 

d.            Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2529 Maple Lane

Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed violations at the east half of a duplex that is currently being rented; with the property having gone into foreclosure and current owner identified as U. S. Bank national Association in Simi Valley, CA, and located at 2529 Maple Lane.

                   

Mr. Munson provided an update, including pictures, of violations, consisting of a broken garage door (violation of City Code Section 407.02.J and K); with an estimated abatement cost for repair or replacement of the garage door at $900.00.  Mr. Munson advised that, after preparation of tonight’s RCA, it had been determined that the garage door was beyond repair and would need to be replaced.  Mr. Munson further noted that the renter on the other side of the duplex had attempted to contact the bank, as owner, for resolution of this eyesore, with no success, thus the staff recommendation as detailed in the RCA dated October 10, 2011.

 

Willmus moved, McGehee, seconded, authorization to the Community Development staff to abate the public nuisance violations at 2529 Maple Lane, by hiring general contractors to replace the garage door at 2529 Maple Lane; at an estimated cost of $900.00; with actual abatement and administrative costs billed to the property owner; and if not paid, staff is directed to recover costs as specified in City Code, Section 407.07B.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

e.            Consider City Abatement for an Unresolved Violation of City Code at 1756 Chatsworth Street

Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed violations at this single-family detached home, located at 1756 Chatsworth, currently owned by David Battisto who lives at the property. 

 

Mr. Munson provided an update, including pictures, and ongoing complaints from neighbors about an unfinished driveway that does not have an approved hard surface installed, as required by City Code.  Due to financial hardships, the property owner advised Mr. Munson and staff that he cannot complete a hard surfaced driveway that was originally required as part of a 2008 garage addition.  Mr. Munson noted that the garage was finished, but the driveway was not; and currently has a gravel base (a violation of City Code, Section 703.04.B.7).  Mr. Munson advised that a City abatement involving installation of an asphalt driveway would cost approximately $4,500.00.

 

After consulting with Mr. Battisto, Mr. Munson advised that staff was making the recommendation as detailed, with Mr. Battisto in agreement to this voluntary abatement.  Should Mr. Battisto renege on his verbal agreement with staff in signing a written contract to ensure reimbursement as he had agreed to, the proposed action would then proceed to a Ramsey County Court Citation and related costs.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, authorization to the Community Development staff to abate the above-referenced City Code violation at 1756 Chatsworth Street by hiring a contractor to install an asphalt driveway; provided the property owner first enters into a written agreement with the City; and if the property owner does not enter into such an agreement, staff is then authorized to issue a Ramsey County Court Citation.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed her concern with proceeding with a Ramsey County Court Citation and sought additional options that may be available to resolve this issue; with staff responding by outlining those options considered and rationale in bringing this recommendation forward due to the property owner being able to obtain a loan and involved in litigation issues with a business situation that he was more concerned with resolving at this time.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that 8% was too much interest to charge for this assessment; with Mr. Munson advising that this was the amount of interest legally required.

 

At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Munson verified that this alternative was the best for Mr. Battisto, and that he had agreed to this alternative to avoid a large out-of-pocket expense at this time; and that going through a Court Citation process was the worst case scenario that was not being anticipated.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

f.             Consider Request to Issue Ramsey County Court Citation for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2575 Dellwood Avenue

Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed violations at this single-family home located at 2575 Dellwood Avenue, with the current owner of the property a Mr. Andrew Lange, also residing at the property.  Mr. Munson advised that the City had received multiple complaints of a business being conducted out of this home, with the property owner advertising Trustworthy Glass and General Repair, using 2575 Dellwood Avenue as the business address. 

 

Mr. Munson provided an update, including pictures, of multiple violations of City Code related to operating a business in this residential area, and applicable code violations, as detailed in the RCA dated October 10, 2011.  As of today, Mr. Munson advised that the property owner had made substantial progress in bringing the property into compliance, including removal of the commercial trailer and glass materials, as well as most of the outside storage; removal of the tent structure and related outside storage around and in the tent enclosure; and had also initiated a permit for the addition.  Mr. Munson advised that the property owner was being cooperative, but the property remained out of compliance and the building permit as submitted needed further refinement before it was approved.  Mr. Munson advised that essentially the building permit and relocation of brick pavers intended to be used on the home in the near future were the only outstanding issues of concern to staff.  In order to ensure that these remaining violations are resolved, Mr. Munson recommended formal Council action as detailed in the RCA dated October 10, 2011.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted that he had checked on the property earlier today, and concurred that the property owner was making a good faith effort to bring the property into compliance.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned if this property owner also owned the vacant lot to the west of this parcel, to which Mr. Munson responded negatively.

 

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, authorization to the Community Development staff to issue a Ramsey County Court Citation to Mr. Andrew Lange for violations of Roseville’s City Code and Zoning Ordinance at 2575 Dellwood Avenue, unless within thirty (30) days, by November 10, 2011:

·         A building permit is issued for the construction of the addition;

·         All commercial and other outside storage violations are corrected; and

·         The home occupation is operated within published guidelines of Roseville’s home occupation ordinance, including:

o    The business is operated out of the dwelling and not the garage;

o    There is no exterior storage of equipment and/or materials; and

o    There is no use of power tools on-site in conjunction with the business.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

16.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

 

a.            Discuss a New ordinance to Enable the City’s Port Authority for the Purposes of Financing the Construction of a New Fire Station and Park Improvements

After a thorough review of available bond financing options, Finance Director Chris Miller advised that it was the recommendation of the City’s bond counsel that the most cost-effective approach was to issue bonds under the City’s Port Authority, as established in 1987 by special legislation.  While not clearly known if the City ever exercised its powers under the Authority, Mr. Miller advised that State Statue clearly allowed the Authority to issue General Obligation bonds under certain circumstances. 

 

In accordance with past City Council authorization at their September 12, 2011 meeting, Mr. Miller advised that, while a referendum is not required, the City would be conducting a related Public Hearing on October 24, 211 as part of the process; and further advised that, in order to enable the City’s Port Authority for these purposes, the City must enact a separate ordinance, currently being drafted by the City’s bond counsel but not yet available.  Mr. Miller advised that the City Council would be asked to adopt the ordinance at the October 24, 2011 meeting to keep the bond issue on track for the portion to be completed by year end 2011.

For the record, Councilmember Pust noted that the City could issue bonds as a City Council or as a Port Authority, with the actual cost of the issue the same, but if issued as a City Council, a referendum would be needed.

 

Mr. Miller advised that there were more distinctions than that, namely a lower administrative cost in front and at the back end of the bond issue.

 

Mayor Roe corrected Councilmember Pust’s interpretation of the distinctions in the issuing authority, noting that the City intended to issue General Obligation bonds, that would be subject to a reverse referendum unless the City chose to have a referendum; but that there was no City Ordinance or State requirement to do so unless the City volunteered to do so or through a petition process.

 

Mr. Miller advised that, in the case of the fire station, a separate State Statute applied for allowing capital improvements, including construction of public safety buildings outside and under a different statutory authority, without referendum but subject to a reverse referendum.

 

Councilmember McGehee requested, by the October 24, 2011 meeting, specifics on the front end and back end savings balanced against whatever obligations there would be under a Port Authority, such as audit costs for any bond or one issued under the Port Authority allowing for a comparative analysis.

 

Mr. Miller advised that, in addition to the Public Hearing and notice requirements, the City Council would be asked to take a series of separate actions all toward the same outcome at the October 24, 2011 meeting.  Mr. Miller advised that the reason for these actions coming forward at one meeting was due to the time sensitive nature in attempting to save the City significant interest savings by issuing $10 million in bonds yet in 2011.

 

In response to Councilmember McGehee’s concerns in understanding the proposed process, its urgency and apparent speculative nature of bond rates now and in the future, Mr. Miller advised that the City had a market history in its favor indicating that a bank qualified bond issue of no more than $10 million in a given year would be much more marketable and interest a much larger pool of bidders, therefore driving down issue costs and interest rates.  If the process was delayed until 2012, and a $20 million bond issue was done, rather than $10 million respectively in 2011 and again in 2012, Mr. Miller advised that the City would miss out on this bank qualified opportunity, in turn costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars more. Mr. Miller clarified that his only urgency in this recommendation and that of bond counsel was to allow the City to capitalize on this opportunity.

 

John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street

Mr. Kysylyczyn provided a bench handout representing his research on data practices in Minnesota State Statutes, Chapters 469.048 – 469.068.  Mr. Kysylyczyn questioned if anyone had actually read the Statute on the powers and authority of a Port Authority, with Mayor Roe and Councilmember McGehee indicating that they had done so.  While he realized that a legal opinion was pending as Mr. Miller had indicated, and of which he had requested a copy, Mr. Kysylyczyn expressed his concern in using that legal opinion depending on other examples and case law.  Mr. Kysylyczyn referenced page 62 of his handout, other cities having Port Authority powers (Roseville, Albert Lea, St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Duluth), and questioned whether those powers were being “cherry picked” and taken out of context or being used indiscriminately.  In referencing pages 54 and 59 of the handout, Mr. Kysylyczyn noted that it discussed the powers, duties and acquisition of property for railroad, trucking and for establishing port facilities.  What was being proposed in Roseville, Mr. Kysylyczyn opined had nothing to do with those stipulations; and further opined that the Port Authority had originally been established in Roseville as a tool for development of the Twin Lakes area in 1987 when the majority of the area was a trucking terminal, and allowing powers to condemn those properties.  Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that to use a portion rather than the entire chapter defied logic.

 

b.            City Manager Evaluation Format

Mayor Roe asked City Manager Malinen if he had time to review the draft City Manager Evaluation Format, with City Manager Malinen responding that he had not had sufficient time to participate in any constructive discussion at this point.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed frustration in the delay of City Manager Malinen in reviewing the document.

 

City Manager Malinen stated, based on his understanding of previous City Council discussions that the existing evaluation format was to be used for 2011; with this document intended for future use after additional discussion and revision; which made his review of the document at this time rather premature.

 

Mayor Roe concurred with City Manager Malinen’s recollection; with the Council as a body seeking to review and refine the City Manager’s evaluation process in the future, but to evaluate him with the current process for the nine (9) months of 2011, and use a fifteen (15) month review of the remainder of 2011 with 2012, with those refinements, for future evaluations.

 

City Manager Johnson concurred with those recollections as well; and stated that this was his understanding of how the City Council as a whole had directed him to proceed with the current evaluation.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned Councilmember McGehee on where she had obtained the original format she had revised in this proposed document, with Councilmember McGehee advising that it was one of several from the International City Manager’s Association (ICMA) website. 

Councilmember Willmus noted that he had seen a similar format used by the University of Tennessee; however, he had noted that this document seemed to be tailored more toward Roseville than the one he had found on line, even though it had been characterized as a general format, but had been obviously edited.

 

Councilmember McGehee advised that she had edited the document for the City Manager, citizens and staff.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, waving the City Council’s Rules of Procedure to extend the meeting another five (5) minutes to complete this discussion.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed her frustration in the City Manager not finding time to discuss the document with her, even though she had made a concerted effort to contact him.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that Councilmember McGehee and City Manager Malinen discuss their schedules outside the meeting confines.

 

While recognizing Councilmember McGehee’s efforts in creating the proposed form for future evaluations, Councilmember Johnson reiterated his understanding of City Council direction for the current evaluation process as developed over several years by Councilmembers Pust and Johnson, and Mayor Roe.

 

17.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items; noting that the October 17, 2011 meeting would include a Closed Executive Session for labor relations discussions.

 

18.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Mayor Roe noted that the October 17, 2011 regular meeting would include the City Council’s discussion on opening versus closed options for County Road C-2.

 

Councilmember McGehee requested that City Manager Malinen direct the Community Development Department staff to look at building code changes to have sprinkler systems and ADA requirements for multi-family buildings being redeveloped.  Councilmember McGehee alluded to her consultations with the City’s legal counsel advising that the Sienna Green project was under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that could have enforced that issue during its renovation.

 

Mayor Roe asked staff to bring forward a report at their earliest convenience on the recommended notification requirement of citizens related to proposed 2012 utility fee increases to support CIP needs, whether the approach would be handled similar to the TNT process or other options.

 

Councilmembers Pust and Johnson asked that staff provide the additional information on use of the Port Authority and Statute as soon as possible for City Council review, preferably for further discussion at the October 17, 2011 meeting prior to the October 24, 2011 Public Hearing to allow individual City Councilmember and staff’s due diligence.

         

16.      Adjourn

Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:10 pm.